Sedat Peker shares post about Furkan Bölükbaşı... Bölükbaşı had said 'I did not make the post'

Furkan Bölükbaşı, who was detained and arrested on allegations of assassination and physical attack against President Erdoğan, continues to be a subject of public debate. Most recently, posts shared by Sedat Peker on social media have drawn attention.

12punto

Furkan Bölükbaşı, who was detained and arrested as part of an investigation into accusations of an "assassination and physical attack" against President Erdoğan, remains at the center of social media controversy. Following the incident, it was noted that organized crime leader Sedat Peker highlighted a post made from his social media account.

Sedat Peker shared a post on his own account from a social media user who stated, "Furkan Bölükbaşı has become such a national object of hatred in this country that, for the first time in history, both the right and the left are celebrating a victory at the same time."  

Following Bölükbaşı's detention, while many political circles and citizens expressed varying views on the matter, Sedat Peker's post became a major topic of discussion on social media. As various hashtags related to the subject spread rapidly, the social repercussions of the detention and arrest decision continue.

In his statement to the police, Furkan Bölükbaşı defended himself with the following words:

"The timestamp on the screenshot in the research report identified by cybercrimes is 17:15, whereas the timestamp on the screenshot identified by the prosecutor's office is 15:17. In this sense, the finding in the research report is erroneous. Furthermore, although the timestamp of the screenshot in question is stated as 17:15 in the cybercrimes research report, this screenshot was shared by many X users long before the time identified by cybercrimes. There is a difference of approximately 2 hours between these two situations. Due to the nature of the platform in question, a post cannot be made by taking a screenshot before the post itself is actually made."

In the screenshot identified by the prosecutor's office, it is seen that a post by a user named 'Omerdumgiriz' is quoted. However, there is no such quote in the findings of the cybercrimes unit. Additionally, the screenshot identified by the prosecutor's office shows the view count, as is the case with all other X posts. However, this detail is not present in the cybercrimes research report. Furthermore, when the URL address identified by cybercrimes is entered into a browser, one encounters the message, 'Nothing to see here. Yet...'

However, if a post had been made linked to this URL, entering this URL into a browser would either display the post itself or, in the event of deletion, a 'this post has been deleted' warning would appear. For these reasons, I do not agree with the findings of the cybercrimes unit. And I believe that this finding was fabricated later."